Internet DRAFT - draft-trace-httpbis-http2-test
draft-trace-httpbis-http2-test
Network Working Group M.Lai
Internet Draft C.Jian
Intended status: Standards Track R.Trace
Expires: March 2014 Microsoft Corporation
September 13, 2013
HTTP/2.0 Protocol Test
draft-trace-httpbis-http2-test-00
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance
with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may
contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions
published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008.
The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material
may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards
Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the
person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process,
and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF
Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC
or to translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working
groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November, 2013.
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Lai, Jian, Trace, et. al. [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP/2.0 Testing May 2013
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described
in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
This document suggests guidance and principles for testing
HTTP/2.0 implementations. Goals are to improve the HTTP/2.0
specification by mitigating the potential ambiguity of the
protocol specification and improving interoperability of its
implementations.
Table of Contents
1. Scope and Goals................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language.....................................3
2. Test Framework and Scenarios...................................4
2.1. Cross-Platform Support....................................4
2.2. Test Areas................................................4
2.2.1. Upgrade..............................................4
2.2.2. Framing..............................................4
2.2.3. Flow Control.........................................4
2.2.4. Streams and Multiplexing.............................4
2.2.5. Header Compression...................................4
2.2.6. Connection Management................................4
2.2.7. Stream Prioritization................................4
2.2.8. Authentication.......................................4
2.2.9. SSL Negotiation......................................4
2.2.10. Proxies.............................................4
2.2.11. Server Push.........................................4
2.2.12. Use of TLS..........................................4
2.3. Test Results..............................................4
2.4. Test Organization.........................................5
2.5. Reliability...............................................5
2.6. Diagnosis Ability.........................................5
2.7. Ease of Execution.........................................5
2.8. Extensibility.............................................5
3. Security Considerations........................................6
4. IANA Considerations............................................6
5. Acknowledgments................................................6
6. References.....................................................6
6.1. Normative References......................................6
Lai, Jian, Trace, et. al. [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP/2.0 Testing May 2013
6.2. Informative References....................................6
1. Scope and Goals
The scope of this document is to describe test framework and
scenarios for client and server HTTP/2.0 implementations,
primarily focusing on protocol compliance testing.
Specific goals are:
- Validate compliance with the HTTP/2.0 specification. Testing
scenarios are derived from the protocol specification to ensure
that implementations comply with all the "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT" terms.
- Assure consistency in interpretation of the HTTP/2.0 specification.
Behaviors and responses are consistent among each implementations
and expected functionalities and outcomes are the same across.
- Improve the HTTP/2.0 specification. Uncover unclear terms or gaps
in the protocol specification during test development.
Interpretation of test results may provide insight to potential
specification issues. Propose appropriate fix based on the issues
to enhance the HTTP/2.0 Protocol usability.
Areas that are out of scope:
- Security testing
- Performance testing
- Stress testing
- Interoperability testing with real world web sites
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Lai, Jian, Trace, et. al. [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP/2.0 Testing May 2013
2. Test Framework and Scenarios
2.1. Cross-Platform Support
- Tests can be executed cross-platforms with consistent results. A
consistent way of conveying results so that cross platform result
carries the same meaning.
- Tests are written with platform-independent programming language
(for example, C/C++, Python)
2.2. Test Areas
Test protocol compliance in terms of behaviors, boundary values, and
error handling with interactions between client/server and
intermediates.
2.2.1. Upgrade
2.2.2. Framing
2.2.3. Flow Control
2.2.4. Streams and Multiplexing
2.2.5. Header Compression
2.2.6. Connection Management
2.2.7. Stream Prioritization
2.2.8. Authentication
2.2.9. SSL Negotiation
2.2.10. Proxies
2.2.11. Server Push
2.2.12. Use of TLS
2.3. Test Results
Pass/Fail test results strictly follows standards of protocol.
- Behaviors that violate the "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT" terms of the HTTP/2.0 protocol will fail the
tests
Lai, Jian, Trace, et. al. [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HTTP/2.0 Testing May 2013
- Error handling results with side effects (i.e. crashes) will fail
the tests
- Client/server which do not tolerate peers that follow "SHOULD",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY" behaviors will fail the tests
2.4. Test Organization
- Test cases should be logically structured and well grouped.
Supports test selection based on feature area, for example, server
push, upgrade, proxy, etc.
- Each test case must provide concrete descriptions and references
to the IETF protocols
- Test cases should identify which version it supports, for example,
HTTP-draft-06/2.0, HTTP/2.0, etc
- Test case name should be related to test scenarios and able to
identify client/server side test
2.5. Reliability
- Test cases should clean up and maintain the same environment after
execution
- Test cases yield the same results over time consistently
2.6. Diagnosis Ability
- Test framework should support standard logging for after-test
analysis
- Logging should have different levels, for example, error level for
protocol violation, warning level for potential interoperability
problems, trace level for debug
- Logging should report corresponding error code returned during
testing
2.7. Ease of Execution
Test framework can be automated through command line tools, nice to
have UIs.
2.8. Extensibility
Test framework has modular structure and extensible for shared
development. It can be added by different
Lai, Jian, Trace, et. al. [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HTTP/2.0 Testing May 2013
vendors/companies/organizations, that is, different people can
collaborate on different test areas.
3. Security Considerations
None.
4. IANA Considerations
None.
5. Acknowledgments
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.doc.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2]
Belshe, M., Peon, R., Thomson, M., and A. Melnikov,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2.0", draft-ietf-
httpbis-http2 (work in progress), August 2013.
6.2. Informative References
None.
Author's Addresses
Michelle Lai
Microsoft Corporation
Email: miclai@microsoft.com
Lai, Jian, Trace, et. al. [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HTTP/2.0 Testing May 2013
Changshu Jian
Microsoft Corporation
Email: ChangJia@microsoft.com
Rob Trace
Microsoft Corporation
Email: Rob.Trace@microsoft.com
Lai, Jian, Trace, et. al. [Page 7]
